Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhirendra Nath Banerjee And Anr. on 2 June, 1937

7. It is argued that this is a decision that) the words "first hearing" must always refer to the time when issues are framed. Such a construction would place far too wide an interpretation on the words used which must be read with their context and in reference to the particular provisions of the Code under consideration. This decision in 1907 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Greaves J. when he gave his decision in 1919. The meaning of these words in Order 13, Rule 1 was also considered in Madras in the case in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Parvathi Achi which purported to follow the decision of this Court in Tale war Singh v. Bhagwan Das (1908) 12 CWN 312 and it was held that the "first hearing" in Order 13, Rule 1 means the date on which issues are framed. The Court referred to the decision of Greaves J. and the learned Judge pointed out that it is very difficult to say from the nature of the expression used, whether it refers to the framing of the issues or to the examination of witnesses. The words "first hearing" are also used in Order 14, B. 1 (5) which provides that at the "first hearing" the Court shall after reading the plaint and the written statement, proceed to frame the issues, and Sub-rule (6) provides that nothing in this Rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the "first hearing" makes no defence.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramaswami Chettiar Alias Veerappa ... vs Tyagaraja Pillai And Ors. on 4 January, 1928

In the present case, no orders were passed either under Order 13, Rule 1 or under Rule 64 of the Rules of Practice, so that there was no direction for the parties to produce the documents and no direction that a list should be filed. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the Judge was right in rejecting the documents produced at the trial. Even if there was an order passed, considerable discretion is allowed to the courts in cases where the documents are either public documents or are certified copies or where there is no reasonable doubt as to their genuineness. We have been referred to Ranchhod v. Secretary of State for India (1896) I.L.R. 22 B. 173, Talewar Singh v. Bhagwan Das (1907) 12 312, Jagdip Pandey v. Taibunnissa (1923) 72 I.C. 397 and Chidambara Chettiar v. Parvathi Achi (1924) 87 I.C. 351.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1